Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
459 U.S. 400 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law does not violate the Contract Clause if it does not substantially impair a party's reasonable contractual expectations, particularly in a heavily regulated industry. Even if an impairment exists, the law is permissible if it serves a significant and legitimate public purpose and the adjustments it makes are based on reasonable conditions appropriate to that purpose.
Facts:
- On September 27, 1975, Energy Reserves Group, Inc. (ERG) and The Kansas Power & Light Company (KPL) entered into long-term contracts for the intrastate sale of natural gas.
- The contracts contained two 'indefinite price escalator' clauses: a 'governmental price escalator' and a 'price redetermination' clause.
- The governmental escalator clause provided that the contract price would increase to match any higher price fixed by a federal or Kansas governmental authority.
- The price redetermination clause allowed ERG to periodically renegotiate the price based on the average price of three other gas contracts in the region.
- The contracts also included a provision stating that both parties must comply with 'relevant present and future state and federal laws.'
- In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), which, for the first time, established federal price ceilings for intrastate natural gas, including a high ceiling under § 102.
- Following the NGPA's passage, ERG notified KPL that the new federal ceiling under § 102 triggered the governmental price escalator clause, demanding a substantial price increase.
- In 1979, the Kansas Legislature enacted the Kansas Natural Gas Price Protection Act, which prohibited the use of federal ceiling prices set by the NGPA to trigger escalator clauses in gas contracts executed before April 1977.
Procedural Posture:
- Energy Reserves Group, Inc. (ERG) filed an action in the District Court of Harper County, Kansas, a state trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment against Kansas Power & Light Co. (KPL).
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the state trial court ruled in favor of KPL, holding that the Kansas Act did not violate the Contract Clause.
- ERG appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Kansas, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Kansas unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- ERG then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Kansas Natural Gas Price Protection Act, which limits the operation of indefinite price escalator clauses in natural gas contracts, violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution by substantially impairing a contractual relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The Kansas Natural Gas Price Protection Act does not violate the Contract Clause because it does not substantially impair ERG's contractual rights. The court applied a three-part test and found, first, that there was no substantial impairment of the contractual relationship. The natural gas industry is heavily regulated, and the parties' contract even acknowledged that it was subject to future state and federal laws. ERG's reasonable expectation was for price increases consistent with a regulated market, not a sudden windfall from federal deregulation. Second, even if an impairment existed, the state had a significant and legitimate public purpose: protecting consumers from drastic price hikes and correcting market imbalances caused by federal deregulation. Third, the means chosen were reasonable and appropriate; the Kansas Act was a temporary measure that rationally targeted the specific problem of indefinite price escalators while aligning the state's intrastate market with the new national policy.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The Kansas Act does not violate the Contract Clause. The majority's conclusion that there was no substantial impairment of ERG's contractual rights is dispositive of the case. Because ERG's reasonable expectations were not impaired, it is unnecessary for the court to proceed to the second and third steps of the Contract Clause analysis concerning the state's public purpose and the reasonableness of the law. Therefore, while agreeing with the judgment, this opinion does not join the part of the majority's reasoning that addresses those subsequent questions.
Analysis:
This case refines the modern Contract Clause analysis, signaling that state governments retain substantial police power to enact economic regulations that affect existing private contracts, especially in heavily regulated industries. The decision emphasizes that the key to the 'substantial impairment' inquiry is whether the law disrupts the parties' reasonable and foreseeable expectations at the time of contracting. It establishes that preventing unforeseen windfall profits is a legitimate state interest, and a state can act to align its regulatory scheme with federal changes without unconstitutionally impairing contracts. This ruling makes it more difficult for parties to use the Contract Clause to challenge economic regulations that respond to broad social or economic problems.
Unlock the full brief for Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.